Peter Molyneux’s introspective attempt to revive the god game

Concept art like this hasn't been enough to convince a critical mass of people to back Molyneux's Project Godus

There's something a bit off-putting about talking to Peter Molyneux these days. The well-known designer of games ranging from Populous to Fable is known for projecting such over-the-top confidence about the world-changing nature of his upcoming projects that the self-parody of his public persona has become a bit ofan in-joke in the gaming community.

Given that reputation, the Peter Molyneux I talked to recently was quite a bit more restrained and subdued than you might expect. The usual child-like enthusiasm and grand vision for the video game medium are still there, for sure. But these days, Molyneux seems more chastened and self-reflective than bombastic and expansive.

One proximate cause for this change, no doubt, is the less-than-stellar launch of the cryptically titled iOS app Curiosity: What's Inside the Cube, the first "experiment" from Molyneux's new startup 22cans. The app consists of little more than chiseling away at a massive, multi-layered cube alongside other players on the Internet. It launched earlier than expected last month and was quickly plagued with server problems, choppy performance issues, and an error that wiped out the amassed, in-game savings of thousands of early players.

Looking back, Molyneux sees Curiosity as a victim of its own viral success. "I anticipated 40 to 50,000 people would kind of stumble across it... that number was exceeded within three hours and it just became a real testament to how virality works, because suddenly the number of downloads was completely spiraling out of all control. Our poor servers were struggling incredibly, we thought we would have weeks to scale out beyond the 50,000 maximum, but we had minutes. The team did some fantastic work implementing a solution quickly but unfortunately made a mistake that got rid of everyone's gold."

Reflecting back on it now, Molyneux thinks the botched Curiosity launch might have also led to the second major cause of his current anxiety: the slow funding progress for his Project Godus Kickstarter. Previous Kickstarter efforts from well-known game designers like Tim Schafer, Chris Roberts, and Josh Sawyer have quickly setcrowdfundingrecords. Molyneux's effort to revitalize the largely defunct "god game" genre, however, is struggling. As of this writing, there is less than £330,000 ($533,676) pledged with five days to go to reach Molyneux's £450,000 ($727,740) goal.

While Molyneux remains hopeful that a coming prototype will help prove the concept to wary potential backers (plans to publicly launch that prototype last Friday have apparently fallen through), he admits Curiosity "had a real substantive effect on our next plan... we had a high price to pay for Curiosity's [launch], which has boxed us in," he told Ars. The new, more reflective Molyneux also seems to realize that his well-known gift for overstatement may be hurting his efforts. It's tough to get members of the public to buy in to another grandiose promise to revolutionize yetanother gaming genre.

"If there's something to learn from Kickstarter, it's maybe that being so open and honest so early with the passion you have for what you're creating is maybe something that the world just doesn't like," he said. "Talking about a game six months before it's released is maybe the wrong thing to do. I don't know many other people who do that, and I think I maybe need to stand back from Kickstarter and say, 'You know what, this is something that people just don't find valuable, and actually it may have hurt our Kickstarter.' It's very hard to analyze the cost of those premises. Maybe post-Kickstarter, I need to look at any or all of the public-facing stuff I do."

Molyneux seemed especially introspective when comparing his usual, effusive style to that of novelists talking up their next book or directors who can't contain their excitement about their next film. "That's kind of what I do. I sit down in front of people, and say, 'This is what I'm saying to my team and this is what I'm saying to myself.' The immensely evocative lens of 'We're trying to make the best role-playing game ever' or 'We're trying to redefine the god game genre,' maybe that approach is not the right approach for the PR side of things. I think it's an honest thing to say and do, and I think other people in other industries do it, but I think if you bury your head in the sand and come out and just do it and not care [about the PR side], you're going to pay a price. I, especially, have to look at that side."

"I've been sitting in the corner trembling slightly with fear and trepidation," Molyneux said of his initial response to his recent challenges, "but you just have to carry on and put your feet in front of each other.

What Godus can learn from Curiosity

An example of the chaotic patterns that come when thousands of sculptors work together on Curiosity.

Just when I was starting to worry that Molyneux has completely lost his confidence, the old Molyneux came back for a bit to talk about the grand, industry-changing vision represented by a game that's all about tapping aimlessly at cubes.

"A lot of the times we approach computer gaming and entertainment in a very staid way," he said. "In this industry, we tend to focus on what excites gamers and players—that's the mechanics of leveling up, achievements, the progression curve. These rules are sort of cast in stone and chiseled on tablets and passed down from developer to developer, and it's unthinkable to break those rules. But here we are in a world where technology has far outstripped our ability to innovate with that technology. Before we can catch our breath we have incredible power of the cloud... the power of multi-device play, the power of persistence. You've got to reinvent those rules that are carved out on tablets and ask why do we do it like that."

With Curiosity, Molyneux says he tried to break those rules by "[giving] everyone this minimal thing—it's impossible to think of anything less than this, and in that way learn what people are actually doing." The result has been an interesting breakdown of different types of identifiable personalities among cube-tappers, from careful artists to OCD cleaner-uppers to rampaging destroyers to "motorwayers" that just cut long strips through other peoples' tapping work.

The lessons from that minimalist game are being carried forward into the more involved Project Godus, Molyneux said. "There's a part of Godus where you can sculpt the landscape, and I love the idea that I can modify and change the landscape, I can create mountains and valleys and put sculptures on the side, the way you do that, the time you do that, the style you do that in comes a lot from what we've learned from Curiosity... the basic tapping mechanic in Curiosity helps us take it a million times further."

Making massively multiplayer deities

While explicit god games have declined as a genre in recent years, Molyneux points out the general principle of "playing a game in a simulation" has thrived of late, from games like Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed to his own Fable series. What hasn't been as widespread (excepting notable counterexamples like The Sims) is controlling those simulations from a god's-eye view, with the near-omnipotent ability to do whatever you want. And Molyneux says the hardware hooked up to your living room TV is partially to blame for that.

"That point of view, standing from a mountaintop and looking down, is hard to do with a console. It's very hard to do with a controller because it's all about the freedom to look around and act. Whether you're talking about a god game or [real-time strategy], those games didn't make it over to consoles simply because no one would do a controller-based version which had the same feel."

22 cans' latest Kickstarter update shows an early Godus prototype.

Instead, Facebook games like FarmVille and CityVille have taken that god-like perspective and dumbed it down to the point of unrecognizability. With Project Godus, Molyneux says he wants to "strip all of that back," reviving the classic gameplay of his previous god games like Populous, Dungeon Keeper, and the Black & White series.

Then, to drive the genre forward, Molyneux seems to have his focus squarely on expanding the multiplayer aspects of these games. While previous god games have often featured the option for one-on-one multiplayer battles, Molyneux seems his old, effusive self when discussing how new advances in massively connected gameplay can revolutionize the dusty old god game genre.

"One of the things our Kickstarter didn't quite do is talk about the ability to connect people together, connect worlds together, connect lands together, so you can do things cooperatively like in Curiosity, or competitively, so it can be my people with your people versus other people. Those sort of flavors of games they should be a lot more popular than they are now."

Unlike the upcoming SimCity reboot, which will require a persistent Internet connection to create an interconnected simulation, Project Godus will still have a goal-oriented single-player campaign for when players want "that feeling that I just want my me time, not us time," as Molyneux puts it. But he seems much more fascinated with the online mode, where the game will encourage players to interact with their neighbors by spectating and helping, then forming into clans based on geography, joint principles or mutual enemies.

"The idea is, we have the technology and we've proven it works now with Curiosity, to connect hundreds of thousands, millions of people together. That feeling that you're in a world is something that's very, very, very unique. We haven't emphasized this in our Kickstarter campaign because we've focused on making the core of the game, but the ability to influence the people and the gods around you is very, very interesting angle to take the game in."

Of course, that's all to come if and when the game gets funded, which is still far from a certainty. And if the Kickstarter does in fact fail, Molyneux seems prepared to do some more soul-searching.

"The alternative plan is to ask, 'Is what we're trying to do something people would be interested in? We need to ask ourselves that, and I think at the end of Kickstarter, if we haven't hit our target, the answer might be, possibly, no. However, if we're close to our target, Kickstarter's not going to work, we'll continue with development. And if we don't continue with development, we'll be working on something else."

The problem is perhaps that people feel that if Peter Molyneux need kickstarter funding, his game concept must be bad. Otherwise he should have no problem getting a studio to finance his game.

This isn't really true. As pointed out, many other famous devs have moved to kickstarter with no problems. The problem is this is Peter Molyneux and he's been overselling and underdelivering for a while, so his previous reputation for reliability and creativity has all been used up for most people.

The best part is seeing him say that his unbridled enthusiasm was too much for people. No, the other devs named in the article have that. They just don't have a reputation for talking up games that don't deliver.

Which surely means that it's a brilliant opportunity for someone with a vision to reinvent the genre?

Maybe, but that person probably isn't Peter Molyneux. For one thing, he's unlikely to "reinvent" it and more likely to make something like what he already has done, and second, he has such a history of letting people down, that, frankly, no matter what his vision the end product probably won't do any kind of reinventing.

I'm glad people appreciated my open letter I should post it on whitehouse.gov as a petition and see if we couldn't get the White House to ask him to be realistic in all future game discussions heh.

I played Populous on my 286 in the 80s and I picked up Black & White. It was fun messing around a bit, but quickly fell pretty flat. You can still find that hand controller that was like a kicked up Power Glove. I never dropped the money on that glove for B&W, but I remember being pretty jazzed about its existence.

I can appreciate Peter's passion and rather enjoy it. However, he seems like the boss that promises all sorts of amazing features to the client while the programmers are behind his back shaking their heads in anger. The things Peter wants to do are not impossible, but fitting them into the time constraints of the gaming industry probably is.

I think people here are a little bit too harsh on Molyneux. Yep, he's a serial overpromiser. Most devs overpromise, but Molyneux does it in a particularly egregious fashion. With most devs, if you hear them talk about upcoming games, you immediately file it under marketing BS. With Molyneux, though, he seems so enthusiastic and sincere (and he probably is honestly enthusiastic and sincere) that it's hard not to get caught up in the excitement. So when the game comes out and inevitably doesn't do everything he promised (or even just most of it), you're disappointed.

The thing people often miss, though, is that Molyneux's games aren't bad when you don't hold them up to the impossible standard Molyneux himself set for them. Look at the stuff he made: Populous, Powermonger, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White 1 and 2, Fable 1 to 3: all of these games are, by pretty much all accounts, really good. Some of theme are true classics. Others are merely good, interesting games; none of them are what we would consider to be an objectively bad game (well, ignoring Fable: The Journey).

What's more, most of his games actually *are* more ambitious than your average modern game. He's not making yet another space marine/modern warfare first-person shooter. Look at Fable 2: this game could easily have been a generic fantasy adventure game, but some of the unusual game mechanics Molyneux got into that game (the dog, character morphing, a family system, the game's ending) make it much more than just that.

So, yeah. Molyneux overpromises a lot. But his games aren't bad; most other people in the games industry would be proud to have his track record of creating interesting, high-quality games.

Yeah, Molyneux has a tendency to overpromise. But if we look at his track-record, I think it's safe to say that it's pretty good. To brush him aside would be foolish, and he clearly is a talented game-designer, who has actually delivered good games.

Oh my god.. that video was so ridiculous.. "oh my each click is too powerful" he was so deeply touched by how powerful the clicks were.. Then he tweaks something.. you can do exactly the same thing just with more clicks.. and "ohh thats sooo much better"

Those developers were struggling to contain their 'this guy is full of shit' expression

I echo the sentiments of folks who say they enjoyed some of Molyneux's early games, but even they were lazy designs (the computer player simply reacted inhumanly quickly or cheated, and the content appears to have been little more than selected random seeds).

Molyneux, for me, falls into the category of "great" game designers who have never actually designed a great game, just half-assed games with great ideas whose potential was never realized. If he couldn't manage to satisfy his vision (a) as an indie in his early days or (b) with the might of major games companies behind him, I don't see how kickstarter is going to help. Doesn't he have some money in the bank?

Black and White is NOT a good game by any account. Flinging poo is a joke, and it only works well for a few minutes, after which you're left with a wallet that's $50 lighter.

Even if we grant that, we're currently at "most of the games he made are good". Still way ahead of most other people in the industry.

I'd argue that by time period he hasn't done anything since his Bullfrog days. Fable and it's sequels were no better than any of a dozen other action RPGs and certainly weren't revolutionary (and I personally didn't think much of them at all). So the problem isn't just a volume issue, it's that he's repeatedly provent that he ha hasn't been able to make a solid game since the late 90s, and his hype machine has been growing since (and no, most developers like Carmack and CliffyB do not make the fanciful claims you claim "everybody" makes). For most people that would look like his genius has kinda passed and all that's left is ego.

He has also designed more games in that time period than during his time at Bullfrog, so I'm not even sure I can say a majority of his games are good:Bullfrog:FusionPopulousPowermongerPopulous II: Trials of the Olympian GodsTheme ParkDungeon Keeper

The thing people often miss, though, is that Molyneux's games aren't bad when you don't hold them up to the impossible standard Molyneux himself set for them. Look at the stuff he made: Populous, Powermonger, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White 1 and 2, Fable 1 to 3: all of these games are, by pretty much all accounts, really good. Some of theme are true classics. Others are merely good, interesting games; none of them are what we would consider to be an objectively bad game (well, ignoring Fable: The Journey).

I played DK2, Black and White and Fable 3. They were all pretty bad. So he's at 0/3 from where a lot modern gamers are sitting. And the problem with all three is that they look good on paper (great concepts), but the gameplay was always just painfully flawed. B&W could have been great, but instead it was a clunky mess that was just frustrating to play. I don't think the kickstarter community is going to be welling to bet on a game like this without a proof of concept.

Peter Molydeux is NOT a self-parody. That's a totally different person and Twitter had his account shut down for a while.

I was not referring to Molydeux specifically with the "self-parody" reference... more the fact that Molyneux himself has a reputation for having become a caricature of an over-enthusiastic, under-delivering developer.

Peter Molydeux is NOT a self-parody. That's a totally different person and Twitter had his account shut down for a while.

I was not referring to Molydeux specifically with the "self-parody" reference... more the fact that Molyneux himself has a reputation for having become a caricature of an over-enthusiastic, under-delivering developer.

I will give him credit for taking the Molydeux thing with a sense of humor (eventually). And he has allowed a little humility and self-depcrecation to show on occasion, but I'm not sure I see any deliberate or systematic sense of self-parody taking over there myself. I guess it's just a matter of degree.

The well-known designer of games ranging from Populous to Fable is known for projecting such over-the-top confidence about the world-changing nature of his upcoming projects that the self-parody of his public persona has become a bit of an in-joke in the gaming community.

To be fair to Molyneux, Chris Roberts' recent video for the Kickstarter campaign was also over-the-top and he has almost certainly over-promised. So Molynuex is not alone in his bombastic confidence.

Quote:

the old Molyneux came back for a bit to talk about the grand, industry-changing vision represented by a game that's all about tapping aimlessly at cubes.

"A lot of the times we approach computer gaming and entertainment in a very staid way," he said.... You've got to reinvent those rules that are carved out on tablets and ask why do we do it like that."

With Curiosity, Molyneux says he tried to break those rules ..."The result has been an interesting breakdown of different types of identifiable personalities among cube-tappers, from careful artists to OCD cleaner-uppers to rampaging destroyers to "motorwayers" that just cut long strips through other peoples' tapping work."

How is any of this useful, fun or even interesting? Players can be casual, creative types, min-max'ing types, and griefers. That isn't news! Molyneux reads faaaar too much into the power of his games.

Let's be honest. Most of us that played Populus loved it...for about a week. I remember my bros and I talking about how cool it was, playing it for a while, then quickly setting it aside for other things. Never had the slightest desire to play any of Molyneux's other games.

The thing people often miss, though, is that Molyneux's games aren't bad when you don't hold them up to the impossible standard Molyneux himself set for them. Look at the stuff he made: Populous, Powermonger, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White 1 and 2, Fable 1 to 3: all of these games are, by pretty much all accounts, really good. Some of theme are true classics. Others are merely good, interesting games; none of them are what we would consider to be an objectively bad game (well, ignoring Fable: The Journey).

I played DK2, Black and White and Fable 3. They were all pretty bad. So he's at 0/3 from where a lot modern gamers are sitting. And the problem with all three is that they look good on paper (great concepts), but the gameplay was always just painfully flawed. B&W could have been great, but instead it was a clunky mess that was just frustrating to play. I don't think the kickstarter community is going to be welling to bet on a game like this without a proof of concept.

The biggest problem with this kickstarter is Molyneux himself. Bringing him into the picture brings publicity, because he's a name that gets press coverage.

It also destroys credibility, because he's a name that constantly promises things he can't deliver. THAT is his reputation now. Why would I ever give him money based on what he promises to do with it after getting torched by his games failing to live up to his promises so many times in the past? I'd never do that.

I like the genre, and I might buy the game if it turns out well... but that's after the fact, when he as a deliverable I can see and figure out if it's worth it. At this point I can't trust him in the slightest before that point.

Some of his early games were excellent. The original Populous was groundbreaking but got boring after a while, but Populous II had a ton more content and was one of my favourite games ever. Powermonger was also excellent.

For me the rot set in with Dungeon Keeper: very pretty, seems like nice play mechanics - but where's the actual game when you've finished nursemaiding your monsters? I never bothered with his later stuff but from what I've seen that's the direction he kept on going in.

Big names do well at Kickstarter, but some have a problem with the baggage they carry. This project is pretty close and maybe it will make it. I might well buy the game when it's done, but I'm going to wait and see what it's like.

We are very fortunate to have someone like Peter Molyneux in the world to generate creative raw concepts. This is rare and valuable. These concepts, if the huge creative effort required to make a great game are added, might lead to wonderful games in the future.

However, everything is in the implementation. No game is ever worth buying just on the basis of a good concept. I want to buy a good game based on the concept of 'Black and White' -- but only once it was fully validated by many users over a period of time. Same for the exciting concepts for 'Spore', or even 'Daikatana'. I eagerly wait for the time when someone develops the games these wonderful concepts deserve.

A good concept deserves funding only if combined with a strong indication that the other 90% will be done as well to create a great game. We don't have that strong indication here.

The entire premise behind Kickstarter being a monetary bet that the people behind the project can deliver what they're promising, it's entirely unsurprising that Molyneux is seeing a less than overwhelming response.

I can respect the man's enthusiasm and creativity but judging by his recent statements he's either wholly lacking in self-awareness or he's a really convincing con artist. The idea that he seriously can't understand why people aren't backing Godus is almost farcical, and pinning the blame on potential customers not wanting to hear about projects too far in advance is frankly insulting.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.